Laws forbidding the denial of access to a workplace were passed as a response to unions employing that tactic in order to win strikes. They hadn’t been on the books before then. Furthermore, the companies have every right to stop you from going to work for whatever reason they deem sufficient. There is where the ‘extraordinary right’ lies.
I’m not talking about any specific law. I’m talking about what would happen if someone tried to block me from going to work, or any place else that I have a right to be at.
Uh, no they don’t. No company can stop me from going to work. Obviously they can stop me from working at that company, but I can freely go to work anywhere else I please. There is no comparison here.
That would be very cool, thanks. I forgot that the feds are involved. That’s not a bad thing, I guess (?), but they’re probably slow.
Olentzero, I have no idea how I missed that. Maybe I searched for 68 or something, dunno. It does seem a bit incongruous with the numbers I posted from the same article.
Assuming this thread continues, I’m probably not going to be posting much more, as I’ve got a LOT of work to do before the next round of holidays. Thanks for posting all the links everyone.
I’d be interested in reading a separate thread on work stoppages and such, since that seems to be a popular hijack in this thread. Probably wouldn’t have much time to post though.
Maybe I’ll be back. Depends on how much procrastination I need 
There’s the confusion, then. I’m talking about strikes and the tactic of blocking scabs from entering the workplace, not the right of free access in general.
I know, and that’s my point. Preventing unions from employing that tactic isn’t depriving them of anything, because they never had that right in the first place. Unions don’t “lose” anything in case because it’s something they never rightfully held.
It’s not incongruous at all. Firstly, that 32% figure you quoted is the percentage of non-unionized workers, not the whole American workforce. Secondly, that figure is from the mid-1990s study, not the 2005 study; the more current figure is 53%.
So if we take a little side trip into algebra, and give ourselves the two conditions
x + y = 1 (the sum of the unionized and non-unionized workforce is 100% of the workforce)
.53x + .9y = .574 (what percentages of each section add up to 57.4%)
since x = 1 - y, we can substitute, distribute, and commute:
.53(1-y) + .9y = .574
.53 - .53y + .9y = .574
.37y = .044
Division yields
y = .119
Which was the approximate percentage (11.9%) of the workforce represented by unions in 2005. No incongruity.
Unions did have that right (to stop work at a particular plant and prevent scabs from entering during a strike, not to block people from getting to work just because they felt like it) and they exercised it. The laws specifically forbidding that tactic were passed as a result of them using that tactic as was their right, which they asserted through its practice. They were deprived of that right by laws which conversely do nothing to curb employer’s rights to stop employees from going to work on their premises for any reason they deem sufficient. Like lockouts, for example.
They never had that right. The fact that they did it isn’t evidence of that right. It’s evidence that they were willing to break the law to get what they wanted. The businesses, as the lawful owners of their property, always had the right to deny access to anyone they wanted to. Just as you do with the property you own.
Being intimidated is intimidation. Voting privacy prevents this as it has been pointed out over and over again. What is so hard to understand about this? How would you like it if people who DIDN’T want a union blocked your way in/out of the parking lot, treated you like dirt at work, followed you home and disturbed your family? What if a company hired a group of “consultants” to do this to you? Seriously, how hard is to understand the concept of privacy?
But that’s the point Magiver: companies still do harass people trying to unionize. Go watch Martin Jay Levitt, read his books, google “union busting” and read what you find. Companies do this stuff. The privacy of the voting booth doesn’t deter them. (And I already provided links to some of this stuff in an earlier post. I made it easy for you.)
Now why don’t you look up “union organizing” and tell me how many former union organizers have 'fessed up that they employ similiar tactics.
The current laws are not working. They need to be changed. The EFCA is the best proposal out there, and I’m willing to bet that very few of the people posting here have even bothered to read it themselves.
the current laws work just fine. Anyone wanting to unionize can vote without fear of reprisal. Anything contrary to a private vote invites intimidation by any and all.
Did you read or listen to Martin Levitt?
I read the disjointed post about him on Wiki.
You haven’t addressed the real world examples of union intimdation on this thread.
Hmmm. I dont remember linking to a post about him on wiki. And I can’t find one when I search wiki for either Martin Levitt or Martin Jay Levitt. Could you please link to that article? Thanks.
Actually, I have. Several times. Mostly to ask for more specifics from people than “belligerent degradation of my quality of life”. It’s hard to address or assess what happened with such vague statements.
Do I condone violence in union organizing? Nope. Do I condone threats, intimidation, harassment in union organizing? Nope. Have I ever seen a union do these things while organizing? Nope.
It makes little sense for an organization based on mutual cooperation to strong-arm workers into taking their side. Unions want people to cooperate to achieve goals, and we know that the most committed people are those that join voluntarily, not those conscripted into the ranks.
Have I seen employers lie, intimidate, harass, fire, threaten workers during organizing campaigns? Yep. Have I seen historical evidence, as recent as 2 years ago of employers and government colluding to threaten and even kill workers attempting to organize? Yep. I even posted links about it, including a video about the Hacienda Luisita Massacre.
So… can I get that link to the “disjointed post on wiki” about Martin Levitt? As I said, I don’t see any article listed when I search.
This is absolute nonsense. If you’re willing to sacrifice your own income to make a point, that’s your prerogative, but you have no right to prevent other people from working just because you say it’s in their best interests.
Would you say the same thing about what Rosa Parks did? That was a much clearer case of law-breaking, since the laws were already on the books.
Let me say this again: The laws were passed AFTER the tactic was first employed AS A RESPONSE to the use of that tactic.. If there were no laws on the books at the time, what law were they breaking?
Unions aren’t individuals acting on their own initiative, unions are groups of individuals acting as one because the majority agrees the action is in their best interests.
I would say that being treated equally by the government, regardless of race, is a natural right.
Depending on what they actually did, anything from trespassing to assault.
You ask twice in the same post. Kinda needy aren’t yah. When you google his name and wiki you get a 1 paragraph blurb under union busting. Must be a real important person to get so much attention. :rolleyes:
You have not presented a valid reason to relinquish the safety of voter privacy. This safety extends to union, company and employee harassment.
In my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of a majority a US senators and representatives, and in the opinion of the President-elect of the United States, there is good reason to pass the EFCA.
And according to the numbers Olentzero has shown us, it seems a majority of the American working public has seen a valid reason to enact the EFCA.
Guess you’re on the losing end of this one, if it comes up to a vote.
Oh, and reading a one paragraph quote from Martin Levitt in an article about union busting is not the same as actually following the multiple links I gave in post #133. You even told me
but the article on union busting, IMO, could hardly be called a post about him. It’s one paragraph… by him. How is that about him? I can’t see where you made much effort to find out information, but you sure do have your talking points down pat. Good luck with that.